Scarlet Letters for Teen Drivers

[chanel]

State officials announced today how they will implement a new law requiring New Jersey drivers under 21 years old with provisional licenses to place red reflective decals on their license plates to identify themselves as new drivers.

The law, named after Morris County teenager Kyleigh D'Alessio, who died in a car accident when 16 years old, is the first of its kind in the country and becomes effective on May 1, officials said.The decals, which can be purchased for $4 a pair at motor vehicle agencies starting April 12, are supposed to be affixed to the upper left corner of the front and rear license plates. They can also be removed when an older driver uses the car, or placed on a different car used by the young driver.

Attorney General Paula Dow said the decals will provide police with probable cause to stop people suspected of breaking motor vehicle laws aimed specifically at younger drivers.

N.J. officials unveil red license decals for young drivers under Kyleigh's Law | - NJ.com

We will not be complying, until convicted DUI drivers and pedophiles are required to do the same.

Comments?

 

[sparky]

It's bad enough most small town cops have nothing better to do than chase the kids around, why give them more of a target to do so...?

~S~

 

[editec]

Stupid control freaking law.

 

[Ravi]

What laws are aimed specifically at younger drivers?

 

[editec]

What laws are aimed specifically at younger drivers?

The law demanding that they have "red reflective decals on their license plates" to identify them.

 

[xotoxi]

We will not be complying, until convicted DUI drivers and pedophiles are required to do the same.

I agree with the convicted DUI drivers.

But remember, driving a car is not a right. The state could just say that no one under 21 can drive. But that would make no sense.

EDIT: Better yet, the convicted DUI drivers shouldn't be allowed to drive. They knew the rules before they broke them.

 

[George Costanza]

Attorney General Paula Dow said the decals will provide police with probable cause to stop people suspected of breaking motor vehicle laws aimed specifically at younger drivers.

Wow! If you are a new driver, you must give up your 4th Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure? That's not good. Not good at all.

 

[Defiant1]

How about yellow decals for those who don't have healthcare?

 

[Rohrer 714]

I believe that L plates are required in many jurisdictions, but perhaps NJ law differs in some respects.

 

[George Costanza]

I believe that L plates are required in many jurisdictions, but perhaps NJ law differs in some respects.

I don't necessarily have a problem with putting some kind of identifying marker on the plates of new drivers, but I have a HUGE problem with giving the police probable cause to stop new drivers, solely because of the identifying marker on their plate. I am amazed that they were able to smuggle that one past the state supreme court.

 

[Rohrer 714]

I believe that L plates are required in many jurisdictions, but perhaps NJ law differs in some respects.

I don't necessarily have a problem with putting some kind of identifying marker on the plates of new drivers, but I have a HUGE problem with giving the police probable cause to stop new drivers, solely because of the identifying marker on their plate. I am amazed that they were able to smuggle that one past the state supreme court.

The cited article says "police will pull over cars displaying the new decals on the road between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. or carrying too many passengers, two violations of the state's graduated drivers license laws.

Ewing Police Chief Robert Coulton, president of the New Jersey Chiefs of Police Association, said cops have previously had trouble identifying drivers who may be breaking laws on probationary licenses."

Apparently an initial challenge has already been mounted: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/kyleighs_law_requiring_decals.html

 

[Zoom-boing]

When are they going to have a sticker on cars to reflect the "I'm a stupid idiot who thinks I am an invincible multi-tasking machine so while I'm driving I'm also downing a latte while texting but it's all good cause I'm driving with my knees" assholes? Just wondering . . .

 

[JenyEliza]

These are *voluntary* in Georgia (for now). I see a LOT of them. Eventually, I suspect they will become mandatory.

 

[George Costanza]

I believe that L plates are required in many jurisdictions, but perhaps NJ law differs in some respects.

I don't necessarily have a problem with putting some kind of identifying marker on the plates of new drivers, but I have a HUGE problem with giving the police probable cause to stop new drivers, solely because of the identifying marker on their plate. I am amazed that they were able to smuggle that one past the state supreme court.

The cited article says "police will pull over cars displaying the new decals on the road between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. or carrying too many passengers, two violations of the state's graduated drivers license laws.

Ewing Police Chief Robert Coulton, president of the New Jersey Chiefs of Police Association, said cops have previously had trouble identifying drivers who may be breaking laws on probationary licenses."

Apparently an initial challenge has already been mounted: Kyleigh's Law requiring decals for N.J.'s teen drivers is upheld by judge | - NJ.com

Yes. The problem with all of these well-meaning laws giving police license to stop and/or detain people (sobriety checkpoints, for example) is that while they appear to serve a good purpose, they actually operate as improper breaches of 4th Amendment protections agains illegal search and seizure.

Why? Because police are always interested in much more than merely the reason for the stop or detention. Suppose a new driver is stopped for a "new driver check" (or whatever they call it) solely because of a red tag on his plate. As the cop saunters up to the driver's window, he spots a baggie of meth on the center console, or a gun under the passenger seat. Do you think he is going to ignore something like that? Yeah, sure: "Oh, I see you have some meth there. Well, since I only stopped you to do a new driver check, I guess we'll just pass on the meth." Right.

Without the new driver stop and detain rule in effect, the new driver would have been happily on his way. Now, he goes to jail. Illegal stop? I think so - regardless of the well-meaning legislature that passed the law for "reasons of public safety."

I know, I know - don't carry meth/guns around in your car and you're not going to go to jail. Begs the question on the illegal stop issue.

 

[xotoxi]

Attorney General Paula Dow said the decals will provide police with probable cause to stop people suspected of breaking motor vehicle laws aimed specifically at younger drivers.

Wow! If you are a new driver, you must give up your 4th Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure? That's not good. Not good at all.

I don't think that a cop pulling someone over and speaking to them through an open driver-side window is considered "illegal search and seizure".

 

[George Costanza]

Attorney General Paula Dow said the decals will provide police with probable cause to stop people suspected of breaking motor vehicle laws aimed specifically at younger drivers.

Wow! If you are a new driver, you must give up your 4th Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure? That's not good. Not good at all.

I don't think that a cop pulling someone over and speaking to them through an open driver-side window is considered "illegal search and seizure".

If the officer had no probable cause to stop the driver in the first instance, it most certainly is an illegal detention and violative of the 4th Amendment right there. If he spots contraband during the course of an illegal detention, and seizes it, that would be an illegal search and seizure.

Now - if someone is sitting in their parked car and an officer strolled over and began talking to them, that would be different. Something like that is deemed a consensual encounter and does not involve a stopping of someone. They are already stopped. If the cop spots drugs or other contraband during an encounter like that, too bad for the driver of the car. They are legally busted.

The key to it all is stopping someone (in this case, in a moving vehicle) without probable cause.

 

[del]

Wow! If you are a new driver, you must give up your 4th Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure? That's not good. Not good at all.

I don't think that a cop pulling someone over and speaking to them through an open driver-side window is considered "illegal search and seizure".

If the officer had no probable cause to stop the driver in the first instance, it most certainly is an illegal detention and violative of the 4th Amendment right there. If he spots contraband during the course of an illegal detention, and seizes it, that would be an illegal search and seizure.

Now - if someone is sitting in their parked car and an officer strolled over and began talking to them, that would be different. Something like that is deemed a consensual encounter and does not involve a stopping of someone. They are already stopped. If the cop spots drugs or other contraband during an encounter like that, too bad for the driver of the car. They are legally busted.

The key to it all is stopping someone (in this case, in a moving vehicle) without probable cause.

in massachusetts, there are over 1500 valid reasons to pull over a car.

 

[xotoxi]

Wow! If you are a new driver, you must give up your 4th Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure? That's not good. Not good at all.

I don't think that a cop pulling someone over and speaking to them through an open driver-side window is considered "illegal search and seizure".

If the officer had no probable cause to stop the driver in the first instance, it most certainly is an illegal detention and violative of the 4th Amendment right there. If he spots contraband during the course of an illegal detention, and seizes it, that would be an illegal search and seizure.

Now - if someone is sitting in their parked car and an officer strolled over and began talking to them, that would be different. Something like that is deemed a consensual encounter and does not involve a stopping of someone. They are already stopped. If the cop spots drugs or other contraband during an encounter like that, too bad for the driver of the car. They are legally busted.

The key to it all is stopping someone (in this case, in a moving vehicle) without probable cause.

That's why cops will oftentimes follow the car. Do you really think you'd win an illegal stop by somehow proving that you didn't perform a rolling stop or that you didn't come too close to the midline?

You can be pulled over anytime that a cop wants to pull you over, and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[uscitizen]

I can usually spot the teen drivers a few blocks away by the low frequency bumpity bumpity sounds.

 

[Mr Natural]

Young drivers are a hazard.

And if I were a cop, I'd go out of my way to break their balls unmercifully. Make them think twice about getting behind the wheel.

Them and litterers.